27 Comments

According to China's foreign ministry, Japan's claim over those islands is a serious violation of the Potsdam Agreement, the primary peace treaty or instrument of peace that enabled the ending of WWII and of course the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

The Potsdam Agreement clearly states that: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Since Japan pledged to comply with the Potsdam Agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands it colonized before WWII.

The poor brainwashed people under PRC is under the impression that their government controls the islands and that Japanese unilaterally landed on them just recently (This is because their citizens don't know about the brutal force they use to occupy South China Sea dispute, and hence, in their own mind think PRC is a peaceful nation.)

The problem with this is that once, let's say Japan occupies it with a construction of a port (JCG/JMSDF), they'll soon transfer their anger towards their own government for to them, they see the government acting like chickens.

I truly despise this "anti-Japan" stuff, from the people who actually think that way, to the press who seem to write that to save space. Its completely misleading.

The trouble does not involve all of Japan. Its the Japanese government making decisions on the islands, and only a few of them really, and some assorted rightists making noises.

These riots/demos are anti-Japanese government, even if the people doing it get confused themselves. The press should be clear in the hopes that everyone gets it straight. There is NO reason to hate all of Japan or all Japanese people. Most Japanese involved with doing mutually beneficial business with China are not involved with the islands and don't have a say. Any Japanese involved with charities, or mere tourists to China, certainly have no say.

So get it right. These are anti-Japanese government protests. Its just one extra word, but it makes all the difference. I have plenty of scorn for the Japanese government myself. But I love Japan.

It appears that an executive in a private company in Guangdong Province tweeted (Chinese version) that their own country's newpaper as well as maps (1953,1958, 1960, 1968) basically labeled them in Japanese names as well as drawing boundaries that excluded Senkaku.

Golden opportunity for Chinese to vent out their frustration and it is easy than protest against communist party of China. Again, the ICJ must take up all the cases regarding territorial disputes in the whole region. Stop playing hide and seek or chicken game, it is time for all countries involved join together to solve the issues at ICJ. Let the real men stand up!

I don't think most of Japanese would care about what Chinese do or say in their own country. They can have demonstrations or riots as much as they please. I think it is helpful for us know that they are really like and how to deal with them.

It appears that an executive in a private company in Guangdong Province tweeted (Chinese version) that their own country's newpaper as well as maps (1953,1958, 1960, 1968) basically labeled them in Japanese names as well as drawing boundaries that excluded Senkaku.

Nigelboy, you have a gift for using confusing language to spin things your way; a poisonous despicable gift. You cannot just mix one newspaper's article or whatever with maps that god-knows-who drew. Plus, just because some exec says its true does not make it so.

This sort of failure to name names, cite sources directly, and mix the work of one group sloppily with that of another, does not endear me to your case or cause. Quite the opposite in fact. It just looks to me like you are trying to pad a very weak case with a bunch of fluff.

The funny part is there are rioters going around vandalizing anything Japanese from Japanese cars to restaurants, and the ironic part is that these cars and restaurants that are being vandalized/destroyed are owned not by Japanese but by many Chinese themselves, so they only people they are really hurting are their fellow countrymen.

nigelboy says: "But let's face the facts. Neither PRC nor ROC ever addressed the issue of their claim to Senkaku even after 1945 when only the U.N. report that there exists a underwater resources there in 1971."

That is because they were not invited to San Francisco for drafting of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. N Korea and S Korea were not invited too. Russia was invited but found the treaty totally unacceptable.

That is the reason why Japan is having so many problems with its neighbors. And more will be coming in the next few decades.

In short, the SF treaty effectively made Japan a perpetual protectorate of the US but did not solve much problem for Japan. Sooner or later, Russia, China, N Korea and S Korea will gang up and demand Japan to settle the outstanding issues.

nigelboy, the map that you shown is too small and can't be read at all. I checked out those Chinese maps myself and found one in wikipedia but did not find any major problems.

In this so called 1960 atlas,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atlas1960Senkaku.jpg

Two different colors or symbols seem to be used to differentiate between Taiwan and Ryukyu in the map, but the peripheral islands of Taiwan including Diaoyu and other islands at the north and north-east of Taiwan all appeared only in tiny dots without any color. There were absolutely no indication that these peripheral islands of Taiwan were regarded as part of Ryukyu at all.

And by the way, nigelboy, you mentioned that some Chinese cartographers made a mistake and included Diaoyu islands as part of Ryukyu between 1945 to 1971. However, you failed to mention that no one in the world including Japan itself recognized Ryukyu as part of Japan during that period.

This is how a typical map of Japan published by Japan and other nations in the world between 1945 to 1971 looked like:

http://retromaps.tumblr.com/image/30107477891

That is a Japan consisting of only 4 main islands, without Ryukyu and Diaoyu islands.

nigelboy, you can't deny the fact that even 40 years after the reversion, no country in the world has officially recognized Japan's sovereignty over the Ryukyu and Diaoyu islands because the US government says only administration rights (i.e. trusteeship that must be approved by the UN as described in San Francisco Peace Treaty) were passed down to Japan but not sovereignty.

That is because they were not invited to San Francisco for drafting of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. N Korea and S Korea were not invited too. Russia was invited but found the treaty totally unacceptable.

It's not about "invitation" to sign the treaty. It's about raising objection to U.S. draft of the Treaty through diplomatic letters, correspondence between State department and the Embassy, or using neutral parties like Switizerland to convey the objection. Korea did this with Takeshima. ROC did not do this despite the FACT they had an embassy there as well as the fact that they were strategically very important to the U.S. efforts in the Korean war.